St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1887-03-20


to IA Little Paragraph i'm the q lobe.
To the Editor of the Globe.
NEW ULM, Mimi, March 16.-In response
to a paragraph in last Mondays GLOBE in re-
gard to my connection with the tax litigation
with the Vino ma Il st. Peter road, l will give
you the following scrap of history, which may
serve to throw some light upon the question:
BARNEY and Others" the proprietors of
the Winona u ST. Peter Railroad company and
franchises, as reorganiZed after the panic and
state foreclosure proceedings, had grant of
lands equal in extent to Il solid belt ten miles
in width extending across our state,
from Winona on the east to the Big
Sioux river in Dakota on the west.
They built the road to Waseca,
on the strength of this magnificent security
about one hundred miles-and then, on the
31st day of October, 1867, they transferred
the road and its franchises to the Chicago s.
NOTWITHSTANDING which system it became
part and parcel in all but in name-the Chi
cago s. Northwestern Railroad company
agreeing to assume the debts of the w mona
& St. Peter Railroad company, to complete
the road, to acquire the title from the govern
me Mt to the lands embraced in the grant. and
to deed to Barney and others the amount
of lands enuring to the road for the portion
built by them-being about one-haf million
acres of the best lands in our state. This
premium Barney and others received
for their trouble in getting up the enterprise.
TO facilitate the holding and disposal of these
lands, Barney and others Incorporated as
"Winona & st. Peter Land company (Which
is the concern you say ] am blasting my rep
utation on). AS the lands in the Eastern
counties in the state had been largely sold
and settled on before the road was located,
the railroad company was permitted by the
granting act to select lands in lieu of those
lost therefrom belt forty miles in width in
this part of the state. 1t will be seen, there
the Western counties-that is, west of Wa
SEGA county. To make up the land COM
pany's quota it took the lands as far
west as range 3S, i'll Redwood and
Cottonwood counties. Hence, ali the
lands east Of range 80, in the grant to the
Winona g. St. Peter Railroad company, belong
to the
WIN,lNA & ST. PETER LAND COMPANY,
under the contract above mentioned, and
have belonged to it since 1S67--as soon as GER
titled to the railroad company, as was decided
by the supreme court of the United States
over a year ago. The land company not be-
ing a railroad company, its lands were not
exempt from taxation by law, but it sue
ceeded i'll eXemptng them very adroitly i'll
most of the counties for many years. In Mic
Ollet comfy, for instance, it was quite sue
cesSful, but it made regulations suffer. As
to portion of the lands in this. in Redwood
and In Cottonwood counties, dispute hap
ply arose DoCW6eu Tue rdllrOdu cOulpany ana
the land company as to the boundary line of
their respective domains, the land company
claiming in court that its boundary line was
west of range 81 but to the assessors and tax
collectors that it extended only to a point in
the eastern part of range 81, in our county.
By means of the mystery and uncertainty III
which these great corporations always en-
shroud their business, the awe of incurring
their enmity, and he threats of interminable
law suits, this body OF land-aggregating over
100000 acres-has escaped taxation for all
these years. A portion of these lands,
located in this county, have been
assessed in the past; others have
never been assessed. Last year State Au-
ditor Braden, reckless of his reputation"
took the Barney bull by the horns and Or
dered all these lands to be placed on the tax
list for the collection of "back taxes for the
omitted years. l have been told that he was
not even courteous enough to consult the
land company about it. Everybody Except
our county commissioners and officers)-yes,
even our Senator-thought the land company
would come in and pay these taxes, glad of
the chance and apologize For the delay. Bnt
it did not, and it says it will not unless com
PEELED to by the supreme court of the United
States. Our county commissioners believed
me
FAMILIAR WITH THE FACTS AND QUESTIONS
involved in this matter, and desired the firm
of which / am q member to assist our county
attorney III 6nIOTCluR Tue tuAeS. InerG is
SIS, coo due to our county on lands that have
been assessed in the past, and about $4,000
on lands that have never been assessed, as
computed by our county auditor. The prob
lem and dill Guilty involved in enforcing the
back taxes on lands that have never been as
sessed is apparent to every taxpayer For
the purpose of providing mode of ''back
assessments" that would be just and equal,
and afford the land company ample oppor-
tunity of hearing, and TO remove other
obstacles, / drafted bill cover
ing these points and making the
collection of this part of the tax possibility
beyond peradveuture. This bill received the
approval of the state auditor and the attor-
new general. / explained it to the Joint COM
tee on taxation. 1t was introduced in the
senate and ably championed by the chairman
of the committee on taxation. But its srepu-
tation'' was made TO suffer in the senate 1t
was sent to the house with a bad character
and finally slain by the farmers candidate
for speaker" What the county commits
sioners of other counties have done or intend
to do do not know. Our commissioners re-
uuested the firm of which / am member to
take hole of the tax cases with the county at
torney for contingent fee. We accepted
their offer and agreed to assist the county at
torney in enforcing the payment of all these
back taxes for compensation equal to 20
FER cent. of the back taxes collected on lands
that have never been assessed-that 49, on the
claim of $4,000 For our legal services in
the suits that are now pending to enforce the
SIS, 900 on lands that have been assessed. we
are to have no pay except as we may posi-
bly, get something out of the other class
And. in regard to that, the county commits
sioners are at liberty to withdraw their offer
and agreement at any time. But we do not
propose to withdraw from these suits until
every cent due Brown county is covered into
our county treasury. The land company has
filed its answer in our district court TO the
claim for the $4,000 on lands that have been
assessed heretofore. denying ali liability and
also urging the statute of limitation. John
NJ. Gilman is its attorney. Very respectfully
yours, JOHN LIND.